Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Robert Campbell]

PARC is not my concern at the moment.

Then why is kissing up to PARC's author Ms. Stuttle's concern at the moment?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle alleges that Barbara Weiss's motive for saying negative things about Ayn Rand after leaving her employ was

Revenge for what she (Weiss) did to herself, and then blamed on AR.

But as Ms. Stuttle's ally, Jim Valliant, would hasten to admonish us, the testimony of anyone who left Ayn Rand's circle, or was kicked out of it, is untrustworthy on account of being motivated by revenge.

So what makes Barbara Weiss any different, from Ms. Stuttle's point of view, from

• Hank Holzer

• Erika Holzer

• Philip Smith

• Kay Nolte Smith

• Allan Blumenthal

• Joan Mitchell Blumenthal

• Elayne Kalberman

• Bob Hessen?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

At this time, I'm discussing some issues I'm thinking about at this time.

And guess what, all this pressure you and the others are putting on is only succeeding at slowly angering me; it isn't going to work at getting me to do your bidding.

Who but Ms. Stuttle knows what her anger level has been, at various times over the past year?

Who but Ms. Stuttle knows what it is now?

More importantly, who cares?

Suppose Ms. Stuttle were to become completely furious—at Brant, or me, or somebody else here.

What difference would it make?

What would she do that she hasn't already been doing?

What harm could she inflict that she hasn't already been inflicting?

The real question is why, when Ms. Stuttle despises everyone else here at OL, she keeps hanging around.

She is posting a lot more here than at SOLOP these days.

SOLOP is her one-stop shop for narcissistic supplies. Nearly everyone who might criticize her has been banished or moderated. Hardly anything's left, except some mutual admiration and a fair amount of sycophancy.

Could it be that the company of other SOLOPsists has already gotten boring?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Stuttle's anger is because her phoniness and manipulation ain't working anymore.

No one is oohing and aahing and gushing over here about how intelligent Stuttle is.

She stamps her foot and no one cares.

Nobody is caving in to her intimidation and mocking.

On the contrary, people keep saying Stuttle is flat out wrong.

And she is.

She knows it. People see it. And she can't reverse it.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

And still she can't reverse it.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

And still she can't reverse it.

That pisses her off.

EDIT: My own comment removed because I don't want to preach hate. Let the haters do that. A little, I guess, is OK. But hatred, after the adrenaline rush, is ultimately boring. Let me just be one of the brick walls the haters run into in trying to spread their hate. And may I learn the wisdom of keeping some of my feelings to myself.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Ms. Stuttle's behavior, particularly over the past year, may teach a valuable lesson:

Narcissistic rage can be really frightening, when the narcissist has power or authority over you.

When the narcissist doesn't, it's merely embarrassing.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen Stuttle has indignantly rejected this formulation, more than once now, but I see the point of PARC as

(1) The moral perfection of Ayn Rand

(2) The Satanicity of TheBrandens™

As in apocalyptic religion (e.g., The Final Combat of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness), each requires the other.

Robert Campbell

[...] it is nothing short of astonishing to me that Ellen Stuttle, a supposed devotee of Carl Jung, does not see the cultish aspect of PARC.

Roger (and Daniel),

Caveat emptor. Robert Campbell chronically distorts in his descriptions of what people on his enemies list say and think. I do see that PARC has a cultish aspect, though I disagree with Robert as to the exact weighting of that aspect. Unlike Robert, I see it as having some valid aspects.

Does Ms. Stuttle need to be quoted back to herself, as her allies Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant so often do?

She indignantly rejected my characterization of PARC.

It wasn't any waffling and weasling about "exact weighting."

It was a flat-out denial.

Robert Campbell

Please do quote whatever wording of mine you're describing as having "indignantly rejected [your] characterization of PARC." It's a characterization I was close to holding myself for a long while. I came to believe Valliant's disclaimers that the characterization was accurate to his intent, but I have no recollection of wording which could accurately be described as "indignantly" rejecting it. Indignation about your behavior, Robert, yes, you could find that. But over specifically your characterization? Please quote.

I'll be gone most of the day, and might not have time to post further until tomorrow. There are a few points I'll address in other posts above when I have the chance.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Notice that Stuttle can say caveat emptor 'cause it sounds cool and learned and stuff, and talk about alleged "chronic distortions" up a storm. When the boomerang comes back at her and her hypocrisy is mentioned, she stamps her foot and makes demands.

Heh.

Buyer beware.

What this person says and what she does are miles apart, although she will always try to sell you what she says as being both.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

For Ms. Stuttle's indignant denial that PARC is about the moral perfection of Ayn Rand and the Satanicity of TheBrandens™, see

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6946&page=2#comment-80403

It should not have been necessary for me to quote Ms. Stuttle back to herself. She knows what she said.

Her request is even more disingenuous than a lot of her posts on that SOLOP thread were.

Whether Ms. Stuttle continues to post here is up to her and to MSK.

Whether I answer any of her posts here is up to me.

I will not reply to her in the future, on this subject or any other.

Ms. Stuttle needs to return to SOLOP, where her critics are banned or moderated, she continues not to say anything about the decisions to ban or to moderate, and Messrs. Perigo and Valliant are waiting to be kissed up to.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

Revenge for what she (Weiss) did to herself, and then blamed on AR.

What did she do to herself? And is there any evidence that she blamed that (whatever it was) on Rand? And that therefore her account is not reliable? This sounds to me like a completely arbitrary accusation with much psychologizing. After all Weiss was during 15 years Rand's secretary and thereby in a unique position to get to know Rand, and not only the nice front towards other people.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

With each post, my already super-low respect for Stuttle gets lower.

I'm already bracing myself for a barrage of double-speak from her claiming that what she said in the quote she demanded from you by petulant foot-stamping is not what she really said.

Stuttle is not a serious thinker.

btw - I keep saying that what she says and what she does are different, but I have not given any concretes. So here are a few:

1. On the different forums, she always says she's out of time, out of health, out of whatever and will not be posting in the near future, then she posts a lot of stuff for days immediately thereafter. This is a recurring pattern and any number of threads on any of the forums can be examined to illustrate it. Those who have interacted with her for any length of time will recognize this immediately.

2. She has claimed several times she is working on a book, will start a blog, has come across an insight that will change human thinking, yada yada yada so she will be leaving "listland" to work on these projects. What she does is live in the limelight generated by other people. Since that limelight is not in such projects by her, before too long the project announced is abandoned and she contineus to post up a storm on forums trying to share in the light of others. From what she has presented so far, a reasonable conclusion is that she has no work of her own to present and never will have any.

3. She claims appreciation for an author or creator and engages in a dialogue of analysis (often outright sucking up to the person). What she does is nasty in this case. Once the limelight is on her dialogue, she suddenly and brutally turns on the person and blasts the hell out of him/her. She tries to steal the public light that is theirs and not hers. I've seen this behavior in several cases. One of the most notable and shameful was with Wolf DeVoon. But there are several others.

4. She is now claiming this and that about the seriousness of PARC. That is what she says. What she does is terrible. The following quote from an earlier post of mine gives it precisely:

I believe the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle will end up embracing PARC—but with a few restrictions just to save face. I am not the only one who has seen the tide that comes and goes as she drifts closer and closer to Valliant. People are perplexed, but I am not perplexed.

Interestingly enough, to me Ayn Rand presented the best reason for this about-face. It is in The Fountainhead:

(pp. 468-469)

Ike flung his script at the fireplace. It struck against the wire screen and landed, face down, open, the thin pages crushed.

"If Ibsen can write plays, why can't I?" he asked. "He's good and I'm lousy, but that's not a sufficient reason."

"Not in the cosmic sense," said Lancelot Clokey. "Still, you're lousy."

"You don't have to say it. I said so first."

"This is a great play," said a voice.

The voice was slow, nasal and bored. It had spoken for the first time that evening, and they all turned to Ellen Jules Fougler. A cartoonist had once drawn a famous picture of him; it consisted of two sagging circles, a large one and a small one: the large one was his stomach, the small one—his lower lip. He wore a suit, beautifully tailored, of a color to which he referred as "merde d'oie." He kept his gloves on at all times and he carried a cane. He was an eminent drama critic.

Ellen Jules Fougler stretched out his cane, caught the playscript with the hook of the handle and dragged it across the floor to his feet.

He did not pick it up, but he repeated, looking down at it:

"This is a great play."

"Why?" asked Lancelot Clokey.

"Because I say so," said Ellen Jules Fougler.

"Is that a gag, Jules?" asked Lois Cook.

"I never gag," said Ellen Jules Fougler. "It is vulgar."

. . .

(p. 469)

"Ike has stated his reasons," Ellen Fougler continued. "And mine. And also yours, Lance. Examine my case, if you wish. What achievement is there for a critic in praising a good play? None whatever. The critic is then nothing but a kind of glorified messenger boy between author and public. What's there in that for me? I'm sick of it. I have a right to wish to impress my own personality upon people. Otherwise, I shall become frustrated—and I do not believe in frustration. But if a critic is able to put over a perfectly worthless play—ah, you do perceive the difference! Therefore, I shall make a hit out of—what's the name of your play, Ike?"

"No skin off your ass," said Ike.

"I beg your pardon?"

"That's the title."

"Oh, I see. Therefore, I shall make a hit out of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics No Skin Off Your Ass."

Of course, nobody can make a hit out of PARC, but that wouldn't stop someone vain from trying to bestow academic respectability to that book just to prove she had the intellectual standing and prestige to do so.

I could go on and on from observing her for several years.

Here's another. There's the BS about Frank's drinking as a ruse to try to descredit Barbara. Imagine, if she can discredit Barbara, she will have Perigo right where she wants him. She will be able to keep him fawning over her, telling/insinuating to the 4 winds she is more intelligent than he is (a really big payoff to her), and she will not have to embrace his bigotry to keep his genuflecting going and keep up an image of independent thinker at the same time. So what she says is she is in a "quest for truth." What she does is political sucking up so she can get a certain kind of applause.

I have more examples, but I am getting tired of this crap.

I would say that people who take Ellen Stuttle seriously deserve what they get, but too many who did not deserve what they got were taken in by her. What she said to them was one thing. What she did was another.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I gotta say, they're outdoing themselves at SOLOP.

All of a sudden, Chris Cathcart has reappeared.

Mr. Cathcart used to be a competent writer on Objectivist philosophy. He published a decent piece in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Then he joined SOLOP, took up Perigonian bully-blather, and pretty quickly was going off the deep end.

Now after a lengthy absence (left in 2006, made a few fitful appearances in 2008), he's popped in to deliver stuff like this:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2597#comment-83928

Mr. Cathcart has decided in advance that my article on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion can't be any good.

Umm, is this because the arguments are wrong? Or because I don't know the primary sources on the doctrine? On account of anything like that?

Nope, it's because he doesn't believe "Peikovian" is an adjective.

Even Michael Moeller overlooked that lexical dereliction.

But Cathcart's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language must contain entries for every past, present, and future word of English.

No coinages allowed, unless they're already in Cathcart's Unabridged!

I'll bet Cathcart's Unabridged also lacks an entry for "Perigonian."

Pity...

Robert Campbell

PS. Either Mr. Cathcart is unaware that I've been banned from posting to the SOLOPsists, or he's emulating Jim Valliant's recent bogus victory laps.

[Peter]

Daniel Barnes wrote:

The vilification of TheBrandensTM functioned only as a corollary of this basic premise.

End quote

I wish everyone would stop calling them “The Brandens.”

You are crassly talking about two people, Nathan and Barbara, with two different view points, and eyewitness narratives. They are two distinct individuals and characters.

REB wrote:

Neil, there's a sure-fire best-seller there, just waiting to be written: Ellen 1.0 + Ellen 2.0 = Zero. How about it? <g>

end quote

Zero is about right Roger. Close, but 1 plus 2 equals 3.

Brant Gaede wrote:

From flower to flower whatever the flower partakes is what I give the flower for flower's sake! I like this one and I like that one even the meat-eater regardless what the meat-eater dos ate!

end quote

Would a cannibal who only partakes in people be a “Humanitarian?”

I am astonished at Ellen Stuttle who I only know through her web presence. She seems to be willing to take on the world. I tried to divert her. Ellen seems to be empowered by intuition.

Hopefully, I will not be called back to the stage for an encore.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Daniel Barnes]

I wish everyone would stop calling them “The Brandens.”

You are crassly talking about two people, Nathan and Barbara, with two different view points, and eyewitness narratives. They are two distinct individuals and characters.

Peter,

TheBrandensTM is a joke. It's making fun of James Valliant and his absurd caricature of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden as cartoon Companions In Evil. It's not knocking the two people concerned.

[Selene]

Danial:

Bigots tend to be a little slow witted.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm missing something here.

Who's a bigot?

Why?

Michael

[Selene]

I'm missing something here.

Who's a bigot?

Why?

Michael

Michael:

I believe that consciously or subconsciously that Peter's classification of Italians is bigoted. In his posts, there is a theme of Italian = organized crime.

Particularly in the anarchist threads.

Adam

In Bal’mer it is called “The Block,” but then if you go northwest a ways it is worse. Ordinary decent criminals of Italian descent control the block. About what you might find in seedier portions of Las Vegas. You can walk there at night. Cousin Vinny is watching. Then there’s Sparrows Point out near the shipyards, where I would not advise walking at night. A lot of Bal’mer was highlighted on the show “The Wire.”

It is already being done, so you are proven wrong. Neigborhood watches, personal handguns. home security sevices, corporate security services, and for the rich personal body guards. For the criminal classes, illegally held personal hand guns, drug gang enforcers, Tony Soprano’s boys, and for whores, their pimps.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Selene

[Dragonfly]

No, we can't have that, bigots stereotyping Italians. Or Germans.

[tjohnson]

No, we can't have that, bigots stereotyping Italians. Or Germans.

Ouch!

[Selene]

No, we can't have that, bigots stereotyping Italians. Or Germans.

DF:

I knew that was coming.

You are a fair person DF.

I know that I have zero (0) prejudices. Honestly, do you think I was being satirical in my sniping at Germanic stereotypes?

Yes or No?

Do you perceive that Peter was being satirical? When General Semantic jumped on the Frog comment, he, basically joked about it.

However, Peter never remarked about my questioning his bigotry, even though I believe I asked it three times.

Or, I am being overly sensitive about it which is always possible.

Adam

Edited January 28, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Why not ask him?

I'm not saying he is or isn't, but the quotes you provided look more like stuff you see on TV all the time instead of hate speech.

My initial impression (on a cold reading of the text) is that the author is trying to be colorful.

The Italian gangster is a Hollywood stock figure, like the workaholic businessman, the prostitute with the heart of gold, the nerd who saves the day, the Oriental martial arts fighter, the dumb Southern cop, and so on.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

Why not ask him?

I'm not saying he is or isn't, but the quotes you provided look more like stuff you see on TV all the time instead of hate speech.

My initial impression (on a cold reading of the text) is that the author is trying to be colorful.

The Italian gangster is a Hollywood stock figure, like the workaholic businessman, the prostitute with the heart of gold, the nerd who saves the day, the Oriental martial arts fighter, the dumb Southern cop, and so on.

Michael

I asked him a few times, but not very politely. I understand the stereo-type, but it is a sensitive piece of my Northern Italian roots training, precisely because of that stereotype, to speak up and confront it.

Similar to the way Ms. Xray and Dragonfly did.

Similar to the Shylock, Jewish money lender slur which would be viewed as a bigoted characterization of Jewish folks.

Adam

Edited January 28, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Shylock isn't a good comparison because there is no actor like Al Pacino or Robert De Niro who plays a heroic Shylock.

I once got into a tangle with someone on the old SoloHQ because she used the term "trailer trash" several times.

I grew up as a hillbilly in a trailer park.

So I know the feeling of where you're coming from.

On reflection, though, I don't think the person was trying to spread hatred or humiliation towards people who live in trailers. Not even hillbillies. I think she was just trying to be colorful by using a cliche.

I know I called her out in very harsh terms several times and she never did say anything. Frankly, I think she was stunned by my reaction and literally didn't know what to say.

Michael

EDIT: Anyway, this talk is interrupting the Stuttle-Valliant-Perigo bashing. That's a lot more fun.

(Actually it isn't so much fun when I stop and remember why...)

[Selene]

Michael:

Thanks.

It makes me sad to see what happened within Objectivism and even sadder to see you folks still wearily bashing each other.

However, I also do not know the "devilish details" of what actually went down between ya'll...figured I'd throw in a little "trailer park" lingo to make you feel home sick...or maybe just sick!

At any rate, I am probably overreacting, but something tells me that in the pattern of Peter's semantic there is, either an awkward way of saying things, or a small streak of prejudice.

But hey, he's just a dumb cop and we all know that cops are racist fascist brutes with small ....

Ooops.

Sorry.

Thanks again for giving it some perspective.

Adam

Edited January 28, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I assure you that if the people I am bashing were not actively and constantly engaged in trying to wreck the reputations of good productive people like Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, Chris Sciabarra, Robert Campbell, Jim Peron and other high-quality producers, I wouldn't even bother with them.

They are pretentious little nobodies who don't produce their own work. They live to attack their betters. They only get audience when they do that, so they do that. From what I have observed, that's about all they can do, too.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

I assure you that if the people I am bashing were not actively and constantly engaged in trying to wreck the reputations of good productive people like Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, Chris Sciabarra, Robert Campbell, Jim Peron and other high-quality producers, I wouldn't even bother with them.

They are pretentious little nobodies who don't produce their own work. They live to attack their betters. They only get audience when they do that, so they do that. From what I have observed, that's about all they can do, too.

Michael

The under impressive opposition is a given. Hell, I was present watching and being involved with NBI. Nathanial's and Barbara's accomplishments are superior.

When I interviewed Nathanial, I was arrogant enough not to be intimidated by his reputation. However, those original NBI lecture series in NY got real "spooky" with the wide eyed acolyte's feeding the frenzy.

It was a true mass movement with all the attendant triumphs and pitfalls. However, here we are today and I believe we are truly ready to go "viral" if we can take ten tenets of small "o" foundational principles into a hard hitting package...people will come!

Adam